More on the election
Why did Kerry lose err Bush win:
John Kerry was not defeated by the religious right. He was beaten by moderates who went — reluctantly in many cases — for President Bush. This will be hard for many Democrats to take. It’s easier to salve those wounds by demonizing religious conservatives. But in the 2004 election, Democrats left votes on the table that could have created a Kerry majority.
Consider these findings from the network exit polls: About 38 percent of those who thought abortion should be legal in most cases went to Bush. Bush got 22 percent from voters who favored gay marriage and 52 percent among those who favor civil unions. Bush even managed 16 percent among voters who thought the president paid more attention to the interests of large corporations than to those of “ordinary Americans.” A third of the voters who favored a government more active in solving problems went to Bush.
True, 22 percent of the voters said that “moral values” were decisive in their choices. But 71 percent picked some other issue . . .
Doesn’t he know it was those pesky, homo-hating, gun-toting, middle American Southern baptists?
November 9th, 2004 at 10:13 am
He’s right. Fortunately, the Dems aren’t stupid. Many of them are already dismissing suggestions that the evangelical vote was the key to the election. Most of the commentators and pundits that I bother to read are chalking it up to lack of a cohesive message, and the brutal effectiveness of early negative attacks. The candidate with the clear and compelling story usually wins in spite of personal or policy failings. I think Bush was vulnerable after the first debate, but Kerry’s strategist fucked it up.
Personally, while I oppose Bush’s policies, I’m cautiously optimistic about his second term. Optimistic, because he doesn’t have to worry about upsetting extremists by compromising. Cautious because he doesn’t have to worry about upsetting 48% of the voters either.
Let’s hope the caricature of him as a deluded zealot who believes he is entitled to rule is mostly bullshit.
If it’s not, I expect my fellow Americans who are classical conservatives, libertarians and moderates to help keep him from doing too much damage.
If not, they too will be my enemy. Silence is consent.
November 9th, 2004 at 10:56 am
Dionne’s not quite right. The 22% were critical; given their 80% break for Bush, that’s the largest single block of issues voters (18%) identified in the exit poll. Add to that the volunteers provided and what I’d consider faith-based trust in Bush’s terror-fighting superiority, and I think the “moral values” crowd was the beating heart of the Bush victory. Of course there were other factors.
As for Bush, I hope lobbygow is right, but after the last 4 years I see no reason to believe it: FMA, Patriot Act, Homeland Security turned into a labor issue. His m.o. has been to push a victory as hard as it can be pushed. Maybe he won’t mind upsetting extremists by compromising; I think it’s more likely he won’t mind upsetting moderates by spending his political capital.
I wrote about the ‘moral values’ factor yesterday; it’s a long version of the above.
November 9th, 2004 at 11:19 am
I think it’s more likely he won’t mind upsetting moderates by spending his political capital.
Eh, you’re right of course. Even his own “moderate” supporters I’ve seen on the pudosphere this week have been saying his version of partisanship means he expects the losers to do all of the reaching across the aisle.
We’ll know just how far he is willing to push when he offers his choice to replace Renquist. Will it be Thomas or Scalia? My guess is Thomas – the opposition will have to be very careful in their critique to avoid the racism charge. It ain’t fair, but that’s politics.
O’Connor would pass easily, but she’s approaching retirement herself.
November 9th, 2004 at 11:20 am
Fat fingers, “pudosphere” was supposed to be “punditosphere.” Of course, I reckon “pudosphere” could be a useful term for all of those porn sites out there.
November 9th, 2004 at 12:33 pm
Dionne appears to think that Kerry should have won 100% of the groups that would naturally vote Kerry. This is a silly analysis. Bush also didn’t win 100% of any groups that are normally thought of as Republican (i.e. religious right, no legal recognition for gays, etc.). People aren’t one issue voters for the most part.
The only surprising number is that Bush won most of the “civil union” vote. However, one has to ask what these people mean by civil union. Do they mean marriage but without the name? Or do they mean a worthless piece of paper that confers no legal rights? Or somewhere in between.
If 40% of the country wants no legal representation for gays and 35% want civil unions and 60%-75% in the 11 states voted to ban gay marriage (and in a few cases civil union as well), one must surmise that a majority of the “civil union” people voted in favour of the gay marriage bans.